Re: Multiple Content-Location headers

At 08.59 -0800 98-01-12, Jim Gettys wrote:
> Could you enlighten us as to why you would want to specify multiple names
> for the same object?

Because in real life, there are often different URLs referring to the
same file. And if a message contains several HTML documents, one of
them may use on of the names, the other may use the other name.
If we do not allow multiple Content-Location headers in the heading
of an object with more than one URL, one would either have to:

- Include the differently labelled object twice in the composite
  message, which might increase transfer and download time.

or

- Rewrite the HTML, which we have decide to try to avoid in order
  not to break digital seals.

> It would help us understand if this is applicable to HTTP as well.

The next version of the MHTML standard will specify that it is
applicable to composite MIME objects when such objects are sent
through SMTP, NNTP or HTTP. There are obvious reasons why the
same format for composite objects should as much as possible be
used in all three standards. The next version of the URL standard
(draft-fielding-uri-syntax-01.txt) has omitted most of the text
about composite MIME objects in order to avoid unintended conflict
with MHTML.

Since the next MHTML standard will apply to composite MIME objects,
also when these are sent via HTTP, it is of course of importance
that you in the HTTP group review it, too. Do not download the
latest IETF draft version of the MHTML standard now, however,
because that version was before the Washington IETF meeting.
I will notify your mailing list when a new MHTML Internet draft
is ready.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme

Received on Monday, 12 January 1998 16:45:02 UTC